Breakdown – streetcar vote

Now that the big streetcar vote is done, I want to take some time to talk about issues I didn’t have space for in today’s write-up in the Express-News.

1. The absence of Henry Muñoz III. VIA Metropolitan Transit hired an ethics attorney this summer after the agency learned (and the Express-News reported) that Board Chairman Henry Muñoz III was part owner of a building between two of the potential East Side streetcar routes. As it turns out, VIA planners recommended (and the board ultimately chose) the route that’s further away from the Muñoz property. He chose to recuse himself anyway, to avoid damaging the process. So while he could have been at Tuesday’s meeting, and then stepped out for the streetcar vote, he didn’t show up at all.

Muñoz is a controversial, powerful figure. He’s the finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He was the co-founder of the Futuro Fund, the Latino fundraising arm of President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign. He’s the owner of an influential architecture firm. He is, as they call it, a mover and shaker.

Muñoz’s absence Tuesday was ironic, at least to me, considering the role he played in getting VIA to consider the streetcar in the first place: Muñoz was elected board chairman in December 2008, though he had not previously sat on the board. At the time of his election, the VIA board had already started looking into reviving a long-dead plan for light rail. The agency’s longtime CEO had retired, and Muñoz said he wanted to find a replacement that would be “one of the great multimodal thinkers in this country.” VIA subsequently hired Keith Parker, who headed the transit agency in Charlotte, N.C. and had helped launch light rail there. Around the same time as Parker’s hiring, VIA and the Downtown Alliance started a feasibility study to determine if downtown could support a streetcar system. Eventually, they decided it could.

Although Parker left VIA last year, to head up Atlanta’s public transit system, and while Muñoz may be laying low, I think you could argue that streetcar might not still be on the table without Muñoz’s involvement.

2. Did Rick Pych recuse himself? Speaking of recusals, as you’ll note in today’s story, three VIA trustees officially recused themselves from Tuesday’s streetcar vote: Muñoz, Steve Allison and Katherine Thompson-Garcia. All three filed affidavits with VIA, explaining the reasons why: Allison’s son works part-time at a church within 500 feet of the proposed line; and Thompson-Garcia works at United Way, also within 500 feet of the proposed line. I’m told they had to file affidavits if there was a genuine concern about a conflict of interest — however, hypothetically, a trustee could choose to recuse themselves anyway, in case there were worries about people perceiving a conflict.

Trustee Rick Pych did not file an affidavit but he also didn’t show up Tuesday. He owns a condo on Dwyer Avenue, two blocks north and west of the potential streetcar system. I haven’t gone out with a ruler to determine if it’s within 500 feet, but one could argue it’s close. So that may be a reason he decided not to vote. Or, it could have been a scheduling conflict. I’m not absolutely sure — I called him Monday and have not heard back. But I will try again, folks.

3. Where were the anti-streetcar folks, with their pamphlets? If one thing’s been a constant at these streetcar meetings, it’s been that people who don’t like the project show up. That was true Tuesday night, but there were a few stark differences — some of the most vocal opponents of the project weren’t there. Stanley Mitchell, who has produced a number of fliers and pamphlets alleging VIA is underestimating both the costs of running the streetcar and what the agency will have to pay in interest and debt, wasn’t there. Nor was Jeff Judson, who has come out strongly against the streetcar project, and helped defeat light rail in 2000. Nor was Lyle Larson, who sent a letter to VIA trustees last week, asking them to abandon the plan. People are busy, and perhaps these folks figured the VIA board was going to vote the way it wanted to (probably true). But I was still surprised — this was one of the few opportunities anyone had to speak out against the project in front of VIA trustees (besides previous board meetings, there’s been only one streetcar public hearing in which folks could directly address the board.). So why waste the opportunity?

4. Little discussion. One reader pointed out to me that he didn’t there think was very much discussion among trustees last night about the routes. A few questions were asked about phasing, and trustees later voted to make sure VIA staff comes back with a phasing plan. Also, trustees have discussed these proposals at previous committee meetings. So it’s not like the plan has never been discussed — but I do think there are some out there who believe these decisions are being made too quickly. Is that a fair statement? VIA has been planning this for at least two years. And I can vouch for the fact that there have been a lot, A LOT, of meetings. But can you argue a project that will fundamentally change downtown deserves a lot of hardy discussion and debate, particularly in front of the public?

5. About those “tweaks.” Last night, VIA trustees voted on a plan, which you can look at here – but then they also said they might change it. VIA officials would really need to decide by the end of the year if they want to adopt these tweaks, which would involve adding an extra line on Alamo Street (NOT beside the Alamo, ok? Calm down.), and swapping out Santa Rosa with South Flores Street. There’s an argument to be made for South Flores, considering it’s closer to City Hall and the Bexar County Courthouse. That change would also allow VIA to one day expand the line further south on Flores, where a lot of development is already happening. But, one VIA consultant told me another concern is that putting a streetcar on South Flores would put it too close to the line on St. Mary’s and Navarro streets. So….who knows. But be aware, the route they chose may not be the exact route that gets built. And that could mean VIA has to spend more money, particularly in the case of adding Alamo — that would mean putting rail on two streets, not just one. Substituting Flores for Santa Rosa also could mean more track on Commerce and Buena Vista. That could also mean more money spent.

6. About that light rail system. So where do we go from here? VIA describes the streetcar as a starter system, the first piece of a plan that could include light rail. But where will the money come from, and where would this light rail run? You can check out VIA’s long-range plan here, adopted back in 2011. One example — VIA plans to run streetcar on Broadway. But the long-range plan (which, of course, is subject to change) shows VIA putting a north-south light rail line on San Pedro, and then putting Bus Rapid Transit on Broadway. So does that mean the streetcar eventually switches to BRT on Broadway? Does that mean you build that light rail line on San Pedro separate of streetcar, or does it connect to the streetcar system somewhere else? Or, let’s say VIA expands the Broadway streetcar line and decides to convert it to light rail at some point. That could mean having to run the system through Alamo Heights. I haven’t taken a poll, but I wonder how those residents would feel about a rail line running through their “city of beauty and charm?” Maybe they’d love it. But that’s the kind of thing that needs to be considered, because Alamo Heights city leaders would surely have to approve it.

VIA CEO and President Jeffrey Arndt, and other VIA officials, met with the Express-News editorial board Wednesday afternoon to discuss the streetcar plan. I asked him about expansion, and he said VIA has hired three general planning consultants, all of whom at some point could or will study future multimodal corridors. They might have a better idea of what might work by next year, but the agency’s Chief Development Officer Brian Buchanan said VIA will be looking at light rail and BRT in the future.

These are just some of my thoughts and questions following last night’s vote and the issue in general. I could say so much more, but we’ll have a lot of opportunities in the coming months, and years, to talk about these issues. What are your questions about the streetcar? What are your concerns?